Biden’s Folly

Afghanistan. Lynsey Addario for Getty Images.

What do you suppose the chances are that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken thinks the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan — the “handover to the Taliban,” as Former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker put it the other day — is a good idea? “None” would be my guess.What do you suppose the chances are that you could find more than 5 people at the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the National Security Council who think the “handover” is a good idea? My guess would be “none” as well.

Handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban is President Biden’s idea, if that’s the right word, and his alone. It is terrible policy, on any number of levels. “Worse than a crime, a mistake” (Talleyrand’s phrase) describes it best.

Axios reports that the Administration “derives comfort from the fact that the American public is behind them — an overwhelming majority support withdrawal from Afghanistan — and they bet they won’t be punished politically for executing a withdrawal.”

Given events and the likely consequences, the fact that the Administration “derives comfort” from anything regarding its decision to hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban is nauseous. That they’re “betting” they will escape political punishment is perhaps more so. What we’re witnessing, in real time, on the BBC and CNN and on the websites of the world’s great news organizations is the Taliban’s reimagining of The Killing Fields. Mullah Pol Pot comes to Kabul in a Toyota pick-up truck. Prepare your 13-year-old daughters for “marriage.”

The U.S. military, especially the special operators, must be beside themselves. Abandoning the Kurds under Trump was bad enough. But this makes that look like home leave. This is an epic betrayal and strategically foolish to boot.

A few months back, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former George W. Bush Administration Deputy National Security Advisor Meghan O’Sullivan co-authored an op-ed for The Washington Post which made the case for continuing US operations in Afghanistan. They wrote: “The most basic rationale for continued U.S. military presence is not to bring about a peace agreement or a military victory. Rather, it is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist safe haven, something more likely to materialize if the Taliban comes to control much of the country’s territory.”

How long do you suppose it will take for Afghanistan to once again become a “terrorist safe haven?” Mr. Haass and Ms. O’Sullivan provided a plausible timeline: “As outlined in the Afghanistan Study Group report presented to Congress this year (one of us, Meghan, was a member of the study group), experts assess that al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other groups that have operated in Afghanistan could reconstitute and pose a threat to the American homeland 18 to 36 months after a U.S. withdrawal.”

What’s happening in Afghanistan isn’t happening in a vacuum. As noted above, it’s happening on TV. The world is watching and making adjustments accordingly. The question on everyone’s lips is: How’s everyone in Taipei doing today? Any update on America’s “strategic flexibility” regarding Taiwan?

Earlier this year, Haass and others argued that the US policy on Taiwan should shift from “strategic flexibility” (maybe we will come to its defense in the event of an invasion by mainland forces and maybe we won’t) to “strategic certainty,” (we will). America’s “credibility” should not be in doubt, they argued, perhaps anticipating the administration’s abandonment of Afghanistan. No such shift has been forthcoming. “Flexibility” remains, open to interpretation.

If you’re President Xi, you see Afghanistan, clearly, for what it is: a humiliating defeat for the United States. He might call it “flexible humiliation.” And what he knows from history is that defeated nations have little appetite for war in the immediate aftermath of losing one. Taiwan is there for the taking. How and when it happens are variables.

This being modern American politics, there is of course a Trump angle. Axios reports: “West Wing officials reject the notion that they could keep Afghanistan stable indefinitely with a small force of around 3,000 that they inherited from Trump. The Biden team’s line is that the only reason the Taliban wasn’t killing Americans last year was because Trump had agreed to leave on May 1 this year. When that deadline passed, they contend, there would be no way to guarantee peace and stability with such a small force.”

Most everything in the world can be blamed (or partially blamed) on former President Trump. We know this from watching MSNBC. But this one is all Biden. What Trump left behind could have been undone with the stroke of a presidential pen. The idea that Trump made them do it is risible.

And just for the record, what Trump left behind was not 3000 US personnel in Afghanistan. That’s not how it works. If you include everyone in (just) the special operations “network,” including the locals, logistics, coordinators, intelligence analysts and air support, the numbers (at least) quintuple. We were spending a lot of money in Afghanistan and spreading it around. It was effective. We had eyes and ears everywhere. (And by the way, NATO is evacuating 8000+ personnel).

When President Biden first announced that the US would be “leaving” Afghanistan, he set September 11, 2021 as the date when every last one of our people would be out. The announcement was greeted with astonished disbelief around the world. Could it really be possible that the US would officially hand over Afghanistan to the people who made it possible for Al Qaeda to attack it 20 years ago………on the very day of that attack?

The answer was “yes,” although the Administration subsequently tried to walk it back without bringing attention to the fact that they were trying to walk it back.

Remarkably, the American press gave the president a pass on this, which seems to be its default setting when it comes to the Biden administration. “Trump was so much worse,” is the always-applicable rationale.

Not in this case. Not by a long shot.

This was originally a “News Items Note” sent to subscribers only. It generated a lot of response. A number of subscribers urged me to make it freely available. So here it is. To subscribe to News Items and News Items Notes, click here.